Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

I'm not expecting 4k to knock my socks off the way 1080p vs SD does. But I haven't seen it in person yet, so reserve the right to change my mind later.

It is said that for the human eye to notice the difference, you would need a 60" or bigger TV. Now the future might have wall size TV's for us in store (or walls that ARE TV's), who knows.... we'll have to wait and see.

But I can see someone that just bought a 72" 4K TV in 2016 complaining about it.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

People adopt new TV technologies very slowly. It's taken about a dozen years for Direct'v HD penetration to get to 50%. So even today, nearly half of highly progressive Directv's customers are watching SD.

Even if D* launches a small number of Ultra channels in the 2016 timeframe, it will likely take years for a large enough customer base to build up before it becomes a real driving factor.

I agree. Looking at the history, the first HDTV broadcast that was really seen nationwide (and not in peoples homes) was coverage of John Glenn's return to space in 1998. For 4k, it was the 2012 London Olympics where Oxford University in cooperation with a Japanese University tested worldwide delivery (in this case from London to Japan) of live 4k sport events.

It really wasn't until 2002 until commercial carriers started carrying national channels in HD, and in 2006 - 8 years after the first proper test - most cable and satellite companies had no more than 25 HD channels.

If the same happens with 4k, 2016 would be a good target date for the first channels to be launched in 4kHD, but I don't see it growing that fast. Perhaps, by 2020, we will also have 25 4kHD channels.

Price, as always, will determine the the growth of 4kHD. Regular HD didn't start to become popular until HDTV's became affordable. I bought my 40" for $1200 in 2008, and I can buy a 40" for HALF that now with the same and better features. There is a line to cross, the line where mass production has become affordable and thus the price of the units drops to a "comfort zone" level for people to go out and buy a new TV for Christmas.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

It is said that for the human eye to notice the difference, you would need a 60" or bigger TV. Now the future might have wall size TV's for us in store (or walls that ARE TV's), who knows.... we'll have to wait and see.

But I can see someone that just bought a 72" 4K TV in 2016 complaining about it.

Having seen multiple 4K HDTV units at CES back in January...it's fair to day that seeing it will likely knock the socks off people.

That said...it still comes down to the content. It takes a ton of bandwidth to broadcast 4K, which is why the next generation Blu Ray or similar units will be the first likely signs of 4K in the market.

The demos at CES mostly showed 1080p content on side-be-side 1080p/4K displays...and you could easily see the difference - but it was less dramatic. One demo showed 4K content on a 4K HDTV and 1080p unit nearby - and 4K was stunning in comparison.

Since SatelliteRacer hasn't been dropping some hints with regards to Q4.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

But aren't some older movies being scanned in at 8k? It depends more on the quality of the film and restoration process than anything.

IMAX Film can be scanned up to 16k resolution. Most 65mm films get scanned at 8k and things like Disney classics. With most other things coming in at between 4-8k depending on the importance, and who is doing the restoration work.

With so many changes, going forward, one has to wonder when the best time will be to buy a new television set. I remember when 720p/1080i came out and people thought that would be the standard, going forward. A few years later, 1080p. Blu Ray/HD DVD seemed to sort out the direction, when Blu Ray won the format war, because of more memory on their disk. So now we're coming to the point of better, or should I say the ability to up the compression in the datastream, so you can cram more information per transponder. It's a long way, from the MPEG2 days, when they could put two HD channels per transponder.

CURRENTLY, and I put that in CAPS on purpose, a 4k HD feed takes about 100 Mbps in testing scenarios, but that is only lightly compressed and served more as a showcase than anything else.

4k HD is basically, using Clinton's arithmetic, 4 1920x1080 resolution screens in a 2x2 square, resolution wise. One could then surmise that if a current HD station on DirecTV takes roughly 6.5-7 Mbps in MPEG4 compression, that a UltraHD station would be around 25 Mbps. Perhaps with better compression algorithms and faster unit processors, by 2016 they would probably be able to place a crystal-clear Ultra HD picture in about 18-20 Mbps bandwidth, so from a transponder point of view, based on current setups, that would mean about 2 Ultra HD per transponder.

I cannot see Ultra HD with H.264. Would probably require H.265 which would drop the 25 Mbps in half....or less as technology evolves.

Also point out that BSwammi always repeats what he is told and isn't very good at weeding out the trial balloons from reality.

Let's not forget that HBO stated in 1986 that they would have a fulltime HD Channel up by 1988 (Analog HD via a BUD).

I've had 7 HDTV since 2001, 4 of them 55" or bigger. So I'm in the demo for 4k. Not saying I won't be able to notice a difference. Just saying I'm not convinced the difference will be such as to make me refuse to watch "old" 1080/720 channels in the way that I largely refuse to watch SD channels today.

I've had 7 HDTV since 2001, 4 of them 55" or bigger. So I'm in the demo for 4k. Not saying I won't be able to notice a difference. Just saying I'm not convinced the difference will be such as to make me refuse to watch "old" 1080/720 channels in the way that I largely refuse to watch SD channels today.

If may eyes can't notice the difference then I would consider UHD a waste of my money.

How about stations start to broadcast in 1080P before we even begin to talk about 4K, most non-ppv stations air in 1080i or 720p

I do not think 1080p for broadcast will happen. The cost to upgrade the infrastructure would be high. Broadcast would require a new standard for 1080p and with 4k or 8k on the horizon they would not want to have to upgrade twice. There is not that big of a difference in 1080i and 1080p.